[Quote from: ErikKaffehr on August 08, 2012, 08:55:14 PM]Thanks for your well articulated arguments. Actually, I am a strong proponent of DNG. On the other hand I have found that some programs Bibble Pro and DxO would not open my DNG files.

Was there a reason for this, such as the DNG files being of a newer version than your software would support?

I decided to ask Canon Support directly. Here is my question: Canon software does not offer dng file format as an option. This creates a problem each time I purchase a new camera that has a new raw format. I can not utilize Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw which are far superior raw converters compared to DPP. Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP? thanks in advance

Here is the reply:

Dear Bryan Conner:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format. The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file. You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe. This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.

We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.

The only reason I've been able to come up with myself is that adopting DNG might impose limitations on how they can introduce new innovations with their cameras and/or that they might be too obvious to the competition. i.e. the undocumented raw file format somehow gives them a tiny bit more secrecy about any additions/changes that they've made when compared to DNG.

not necessarily undocumented, but w/o a need to get an approval/share information w/ unwanted 3rd parties... upon release of the feature it may or may not be documented based on the manufacturers needs

what is not correct ? that you need to disclose your development to your competitors sitting in the same standards organization because it is depends on changes in DNG format and then it will be blocked or delayed by them and you have to wait w/ the release of the feature to the market

I agree that DNG is not a bad idea: it is a good idea overall, much better than the Tower of Babble scenario we are in now.

it is not Tower of Babble, not even near that... for each raw format out there you have several raw converters ranging from free/open source to commercial/closed source offering support... and if we start counting than DNG is actually supported by less converters because some commercial have issues of various nature... moreover when Tower of Babble invoked by LR/ACR users it is simply a joke, because Adobe provides equal support for DNG and non DNG raw files by design... even in cases like Sigma raw files... so for you Tower of Babble scenarion is absolutely not in place because you have a common language - Adobe raw converters.

In both instances, assume that you haven't started making a cake.And how are you going to react to me asking both questions?

By asking "When" you are conveying to the person that you expect something to happen. The "Why" question does not convey the same meaning and gives them an easier out.

If you have no intentions of making me a cake, and I ask "when?", your answer can truthfully, and simply, "never". My next question would logically be "why are you not making me a cake?". I simply cut to the chase. I have no expectation of Canon adopting dng. Why should anyone have this as an expectation? If this expectation were reasonable, they would have done it years ago. The reasons that are valid in supporting the adoption of dng (or any open raw format) that exist today also existed years ago. The only expectation I had was that I learn the reasoning behind the lack of acceptance/incorporation of dng into the Canon Raw World. I got a reason. I do not think that this is the real reason...I think the reason given was really lame.

But, the question was not the wrong question. It was one of many appropriate questions.

it is not Tower of Babble, not even near that... for each raw format out there you have several raw converters ranging from free/open source to commercial/closed source offering support... and if we start counting than DNG is actually supported by less converters because some commercial have issues of various nature... moreover when Tower of Babble invoked by LR/ACR users it is simply a joke, because Adobe provides equal support for DNG and non DNG raw files by design... even in cases like Sigma raw files... so for you Tower of Babble scenarion is absolutely not in place because you have a common language - Adobe raw converters.

Most 3rd party raw converters can translate the different raw formats (languages) spoken by each manufacturers cameras. But, can Canon's DPP open an NEF file? and vice versa? My point in using the "Tower of Babble" example to describe the situation was in reference to all of these different "languages" being spoken. And you are correct, I was using it jokingly. When a new camera is introduced that uses a new raw format, it is possible that Adobe can not understand. What about the Sony RX100 users today? Where is your common language with it? Which Adobe Raw converter can translate that language?

Disclosure and transparency would be useful but that's really only 2 of the seven sustainability factors.

I agree that moving to a widely used standard lossless image file format would be desirable, but I think that the problems of multiple formats are being greatly exaggerated, in particular as an issue for archival longevity. It seems to me more an issue of convenience rather than any real risk of losing access to old images. My reason for proposing another goal, publication of specs of all raw formats, is that I see this as far more attainable that persuading camera makers to go to the additional effort and expense of rewriting all their existing in-camera firmware and other software to support a different raw format like DNG. The difference between successive versions of a camera maker's own raw format are probably far smaller, making it cheaper and quicker for a camera maker to make minor tweaks to their existing, formats, firmware and software as necessary to support each new sensor. (How much do the new formats for new cameras of the same brand vary? Is it mostly for different CFAs and lens-related information, to guide demosaicing, "de-barelling" and such?)

As to those seven sustainability factors listed by the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program of the Library of Congress at sites like http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/ --- ss far as I can tell, if the more modest goal of publication of the specifications of all raw file formats were achieved, all such archival factors could be handled. The worst case scenario would be an archive acquiring a collection of old image files available only in an obsolete format that is no longer supported by any standard commercial software. But as far as I can tell, all it would take to deal with this is that some organization (such as the Library of Congress or UNESCO) maintain an archive of the specifications of various raw formats and a reference implementation of software for image file format conversion, supporting that entire archive of formats. I see no major difficulty in adding a dozen or so new file format specifications each year to such a system.

By the way, the archival purpose of not losing access to an old image (rather than retaining maximum ability to manipulate it) could be handled by conversion to TIFF, or maybe even to high quality JPEG. All camera makers support that option, don't they?

If the camera makers would have their own raw conversion software that was up to the quality that Adobe produces, this discussion would not be so important. If you take Adobe products out of the mix, DPP does not look that bad, but up against Adobe products, Canon's software solutions are lacking in many areas. Canon could do better. Many of their products are state of the art...why not their software? I can not speak for the users of Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji etc, but from what I have read, many are in the same situation.

I decided to ask Canon Support directly. Here is my question: Canon software does not offer dng file format as an option. This creates a problem each time I purchase a new camera that has a new raw format. I can not utilize Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw which are far superior raw converters compared to DPP. Why does not Canon offer dng as an option either in camera or via DPP? thanks in advance

Here is the reply:

Dear Bryan Conner:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

The DNG file or digital negative is not a Canon format. The DNG file has been processed and does not contain as much color information as the Canon CR2 RAW file. You can convert the file to a TIFF file in Digital Photo Professional and open the TIFF in Adobe. This will retain color information and have a usable file across applications, but the file will be very large.

We hope this information was useful to you. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with any of our Canon products.

By the way, the archival purpose of not losing access to an old image (rather than retaining maximum ability to manipulate it) could be handled by conversion to TIFF, or maybe even to high quality JPEG. All camera makers support that option, don't they?

Ah, so you be happy having a copy of the Mona Lisa and trashing the original painting? As we've seen since the beginning of the digital revolution, raw digital captures keep getting better and better because of the advances of raw processing capability. No having access to the original would really be a big problem for archivists.

Don't loose sight of the goal of conservation and preservation...it's to keep giving us access to originals far into the future. Anything that is done to jeopardize that goal is a bad, bad thing. And not doing something that should be done is equally bad. The current behavior of the camera companies is a bad thing for the long term conservation and preservation of photography. I don't think there is any real dispute about that, correct?

If you have no intentions of making me a cake, and I ask "when?", your answer can truthfully, and simply, "never". My next question would logically be "why are you not making me a cake?". I simply cut to the chase. I have no expectation of Canon adopting dng. Why should anyone have this as an expectation?

Why should anyone have the expectation that Canon will make it possible to shoot in DNG?

Because DNG is being offered up as a standard file format for raw data from digital cameras and we as consumers would like to have standards compliant digital cameras.